Opinion of the Court.

ions on writs of error and applications for habeas corpus in various inferior tribunals, we do not doubt that the indictment sets forth a conspiracy by the parties to this appeal to induce the inspectors of election in Indianapolis to omit the discharge of their duty and to fail to safely keep and guard the poll lists, tally papers and certificates committed to their care for the precincts at which they each presided. Nor do we doubt that the statute of Indiana imposed such a duty upon those inspectors, which they were induced to violate by the persuasion and influence of the parties to this conspiracy.

We are the less inclined to enter into these controversies, as to a narrow construction of the statutes of Indiana and the acts of Congress, because we think they were questions properly before the District Court on the trial of the prisoners. They were questions of which that court had jurisdiction and which it was its duty to decide. When decided by that court they were not subject to review here by a writ of error, nor were they in a proper or just sense questions affecting its jurisdiction. It would be as well to say that every question concerning the sufficiency and validity of an indictment and the evidence necessary to support it, was a matter of jurisdiction, and authorized an interference, if error took place, by a writ of habeas corpus for its correction. That this cannot be done has been repeatedly held in this court.

The leading case on the subject is that of Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, in which the opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Marshall. Watkins was committed to jail in the District of Columbia by virtue of a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for that District. An application for a writ of habeas corpus was made on his behalf upon the ground that the indictment on which he was convicted did not show any jurisdiction in that court, and that it charged no offence for which he could be punished therein. The eminent Chief Justice, after remarking upon the general proposition that a commitment by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is a sufficient answer to a writ of habeas corpus intended to effect his discharge, said: "The judgment of a court of ecord whose jurisdiction is final is as conclusive

Opinion of the Court.

on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it. The counsel for the prisoner admit the application of these principles to a case in which the indictment alleges a crime cognizable in the court by which the judgment was pronounced, but they deny their application to a case in which the indictment charges an offence not punishable criminally according to the law of the land. But with what propriety can this court look into the indictment? We have no power to examine the proceedings on a writ of error, and it would be strange if, under color of a writ to liberate an individual from unlawful imprisonment, we could substantially reverse a judgment which the law has placed beyond our control. An imprisonment under a judgment cannot be unlawful, unless that judgment be an absolute nullity; and it is not a nullity if the court has general jurisdiction of the subject, although it should be erroneous. The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia is a court of record, having general jurisdiction over criminal cases. An offence cognizable in any court is cognizable in that court. If the offence be punishable by law, that court is competent to inflict the punishment. The judgment of such a tribunal has all the obligation which the judgment of any tribunal can have. To determine whether the offence charged in the indictment be legally punishable or not, is' among the most unquestionable of its powers and duties. The decision of this question is the exercise of jurisdiction, whether the judgment be for or against the prisoner. The judgment is equally binding in the one case and in the other, and must remain in full force unless reversed regularly by a superior court capable of reversing it." pp. 202, 203.

It may be said that this language is too broad in asserting that, because every court must pass upon its own jurisdiction, such decision is itself the exercise of a jurisdiction which belongs to it, and cannot, therefore, be questioned in any other court. But we do not so understand the meaning of the court. It certainly was not intended to say that because a federal court tries a prisoner for an ordinary common law

Opinion of the Court.

offence, as burglary, assault and battery, or larceny, with no averment or proof of any offence against the United States, or any connection with a statute of the United States, and punishes him by imprisonment, he cannot be released by habeas corpus because the court which tried him had assumed jurisdiction.

In all such cases, when the question of jurisdiction is raised, the point to be decided is, whether the court has jurisdiction of that class of offences. If the statute has invested the court which tried the prisoner with jurisdiction to punish a well defined class of offences, as forgery of its bonds or perjury in its courts, its judgment as to what acts were necessary under these statutes to constitute the crime is not reviewable on a writ of habeas corpus.

And, as the laws of Congress are only valid when they are within the constitutional power of that body, the validity of the statute under which a prisoner is held in custody may be inquired into under a writ of habeas corpus as affecting the jurisdiction of the court which ordered his imprisonment. And if their want of power appears on the face of the record of his condemnation, whether in the indictment or elsewhere, the court which has authority to issue the writ is bound to release him. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371.

So, while we have attempted to answer the main argument of prisoners' counsel, that Congress had no power to punish an act not specifically intended to affect the election of a member of Congress, though the act was done with a felonious intent, and that if it had such power it has not exercised it, we thought it not necessary, under the principle laid down in Ex parte Watkins, to inquire into the sufficiency of the allegation of the more minute details of the offence as charged in the indictinent. We are not here to consider it as on a demurrer before trial; but, finding that the District Court had a general jurisdiction of this class of offences, we proceed no further in the inquiries on that subject.

In Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18, 23, this question was very ably reviewed upon all the authorities. The case of Watkins was reaffirmed, and the general proposition announced that it

Opinion of the Court.

was apparent from a review of the cases that "where the prisoner is in execution upon a conviction the writ ought not to be issued, or, if issued, the prisoner should at once be remanded, if the court below had jurisdiction of the offence, and did no act beyond the powers conferred upon it. The District Court had plenary jurisdiction, both of the person, the place, the cause, and everything about it. To review the decision of that court by means of a writ of habeas corpus would be to convert that writ into a mere writ of error, and to assume an appellate power which has never been conferred upon this court."

In Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, the subject was again examined very fully. The court reiterated the doctrine that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be converted into a writ of error by which the judgment of the court passing the sentence can be reviewed. The court there said: "If that court had jurisdiction of the party and of the offence for which he was tried, and has not exceeded its powers in the sentence which it pronounced, this court can inquire no further. This principle disposes of the argument made before us on the insufficiency of the indictments under which the prisoners in this case were tried. Whether the indictment sets forth in comprehensive terms the offence which the statute describes and forbids, and for which it prescribes a punishment, is in every case a question of law, which must necessarily be decided by the court in which the case originates, and is therefore clearly within its jurisdiction. Its decision on the conformity of the indictment to the provisions of the statute may be erroneous, but if so it is an error of law made by a court acting within its jurisdiction, which could be corrected on a writ of error if such writ was allowed, but which cannot be looked into on a writ of habeas corpus limited to an inquiry into the existence of jurisdiction on the part of that court." pp. 653, 654. Citing Ex parte Tobias Watkins and Ex parte Parks, supra.

We cannot better close this opinion than by a further extract from that of the court in Ex parte Yarbrough, p. 666: "In a republican government, like ours, where political power

Dissenting Opinion: Field, J.

is reposed in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger. Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours has been comparatively free from both these evils in the past, no lover of his country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger from both sources."

The judgment of the Circuit Court, denying the writ of habeas corpus, is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD dissenting.

The petitioners and appellants were indicted in the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana for an alleged conspiracy to commit an offence against the United States, and were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine and be imprisoned. The fine of Bernhamer was one thousand dollars, and his imprisonment was for one year; the fine of Coy was one hundred dollars, and his imprisonment was for eighteen months. The offence charged was that the accused conspired with one Perkins to induce the inspectors of an election held in Indiana, in November, 1886, at which a Representative in Congress was voted for, to omit a duty imposed upon them by the laws of that State, to safely keep the poll lists of the voters, the tally papers, and the certificates of the judges of election, until they were delivered to the clerk of the county, or to its board of canvassers, by whom the votes were to be examined and counted; and, to effect the object of the conspiracy, persuaded the inspectors to deliver those papers to persons who had no authority to take charge of them.

On this appeal we can only inquire whether the Circuit Court erred in refusing to issue the writ; and I admit, in determining upon the propriety of issuing it, the sole question that court could consider was whether the District Court of Indiana, in which the appellants were indicted, tried, and convicted, had jurisdiction of the offence and of the parties accused, and to render the judgment pronounced. As was said in Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 375: "The only ground